Related posts:

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 3rd, 2013 at 7:00 am and is filed under New Zealand.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

“The deal of the decade comes along once a week!” says de Roos. “If you believe that, you will find deal after deal after deal.” But you will only amass money, he says, when you come from an abundance consciousness instead of a poverty consciousness; when you tell yourself, “I am a magnet for money!”

Tonight, a pumped de Roos tells his audience that he wants people to invest in property and write to him 12 months down the track and tell him they’ve “made one million or three million, or you’ve got 16 properties, or we’re taking six months off because our cash flow now exceeds our outflow!” He says, “I don’t know any other activity where the rewards are so huge. If you want to invest a million dollars in the sharemarket, you need a million dollars. If you want to invest a million in real estate, you only need $100,000.”

You can buy one property, get it revalued, use the equity to buy another property and then buy another and another. “And you do it all with OPM. Other people’s money. OPM. It’s like being high on drugs!” What’s more, the wonder of depreciation claims on the building and contents means “the government subsidises your investment! It’s delightful!”http://www.listener.co.nz/uncategorized/house-of-the-rising-sum/

The original report did not say the family coud not rent because they had no money. What it did say was that the famiy was being turned down by landlords because of a poor credit history etc. What whale’s research found was only reinforces what the reporter wrote. They are turned down because they are undesirable tenants not because they have no money.

In addition, Whale went on a rant against the reporter accusing her acusing her of an agenda in trying to find there was a housing crisis in christchurch. He even posted that she had been thrown under a bus by the ditors as a resultof an editorial the next day! The article was one of a series lookingat housing inpost quake christchurch and the first article in the series said that there was no housing crisis, somthing blogged by you and whale oil aat the time.

Cam Slater is too fucking stupid to read the bylines and you should know better to trust what Cam writes.

Second paragraph “Anne Bovey and her partner AJ McIlroy say landlords reject them because they are both on a benefit and have a poor credit rating.” Not because they have no money.

Also:

“[the investigation] found, however, that those who usually battle to get good housing are more disadvantaged in the rental market because landlords can afford to be more selective.

And:

“The city has also lost a lot of its cheaper housing stock.”

And:

“Independent landlord Pam Shadbolt owns about 20 properties throughout the city and agreed she could be “pickier” about who she rented to.

“Landlords have a choice of the type of tenant they get now. You can be stricter on the credit records and not take the risks on people you used to have to. I do feel sorry for people who can’t find a home.”

The reporter did a third article about the problems new home buyers faced in Christchurch (inflated expectations was said to be the main problem). Meanwhile Whaleoil continued attacking the family and then citing a Press editorial on the series of reports claimed the editors had thrown her under a bus.

Finally the reporter reports on the public reaction

“Some called me heartless, others accused me of lying and one even told me I was in the National Party’s pocket.”

I am frankly appalled at the judgmentalism displayed by my fellow righties on this thread….When you are at the bottom of the heap you NEED something to enliven your dull existence…Woodstock does that (so they tell me; my drug of choice in the bad times was cheap wine)…And what is wrong with “body art”? When you look like a failed GE experiment, it is your human right to try and make yourself feel better! And who are you to make comments on her fertility? It’s a woman’s human right to control her own fertility!

And peircings…would you have Anne go to some back street operator whose sterilization practices may be suspect? And then she’d just be in hospital with an infection, or even get hep C…Jeez, where is your compassion?

And who can manage today without at least one smart phone? Especially when you have a number of accounts on social media to keep current! Leave these people alone! Hell, the rant about smartphones sounds so last century…We are all special in our own way….

If we applied some moral relativity as the ‘left’ say we should, you will find that the ‘dead baby’ label is just ‘emotional propaganda’ as it is already dead – hardly an unborn baby!

The only thing relevant to the matter is dishonesty!

If Garrett had simply ‘cashed a stolen cheque’ or ‘forged something’ he’d still possably be an MP. It’s just as dishonest, but when you apply the ‘dead baby’ label…..or ‘grave robber’ and go on to fight the case…..in public….you’ll look even worse…..

A detective told me years ago “We all do dumb things, even us, but the idea is not to do really stupid things.”

What he did was only dumb…but given the profile and publicity and the dead baby label….well….no one could come back from that.

Harricunt (ooh look I can change your name to something else too, aren’t I clever, name calling is so mature?) – stealing a dead baby’s identity is a pretty low thing to do. Sure, it’s something stupid from his youth, but it’s somewhat worse than cashing a stolen cheque – if he’d only done that, then yes he probably wouldn’t have been made to resign although that would be dependent on the scale of the crime. It’s got nothing to do with emotional language. As for being an MP, probably not, due to ACT’s performance at the last election – which Garrett contributed to.

It’s pretty rich for someone like David Garrett to judge people, when he stole a dead baby’s identity.

Has it ever occurred to you “gazza” that commenting on identity and disguise from atop a high white charger is more than somewhat ironic when you hide behind a pseud? What do you think I am going to do to you, if I know who you are Gary?

If someone here knows this brave boy’s full name and where he lives, please do feel free to post it…I am in Kanohi Road Kaukakapakapa ….come on out any time “gazza”….After dark is probably too challenging for you though…and in all conscience I wouldnt recommend it….

And it was a measure of his character at the time. But we know he realised that what he did was appalling because he never continued down that path. Court records indicate that.

He then, older and wiser, entered parliment with as much character as the rest of them. [yes you could say they are all poorly behaved, but like him they didn’t have any ‘current’ illegal ‘form’ – they were really no better or worse than Garrett was when they entered.]
If Garrett had said what he’d done before entering parliment, even then he probably wouldn’t have got elected. But it was in his youth, and entering parliment 30 odd years later, his ‘crime’ should not have really counted against him – but it would have- for being too ‘honest’. It would have made TV and he would’ve be gone.

I think others should have stood up for him more than they did. And that reflects on their character.